Applied Filters

Several major dairy policy issues are addressed in the context of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107- 171, the 2002 farm bill), which was signed into law on May 13, 2002. Included in the enacted 2002 farm bill are a reauthorization of the dairy price support program for an additional 5 ½ years, and new authorization for direct payments to dairy farmers through September 2005, triggered whenever the market price of farm milk falls below a target price level.

Three major dairy policy issues captured the attention of the 106th Congress, and are expected to remain issues of concern to the 107th Congress-- federal financial assistance for dairy farmers; implementation by USDA of changes to federal farm milk pricing regulations; and regional debates over the market effects of dairy compacts.

Several major dairy policy issues are addressed in the context of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107- 171, the 2002 farm bill), which was signed into law on May 13, 2002. Included in the enacted 2002 farm bill are a reauthorization of the dairy price support program for an additional 5 ½ years, and new authorization for direct payments to dairy farmers through September 2005, triggered whenever the market price of farm milk falls below a target price level.

Several major dairy policy issues are addressed in the context of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107- 171, the 2002 farm bill), which was signed into law on May 13, 2002. Included in the enacted 2002 farm bill are a reauthorization of the dairy price support program for an additional 5 ½ years, and new authorization for direct payments to dairy farmers through September 2005, triggered whenever the market price of farm milk falls below a target price level.

Many dairy farmer groups are concerned that imports of milk protein concentrates (MPCs) are displacing domestic dairy ingredients and thus depressing farm milk prices. S.560 and H.R. 1160 would impose tariff rate quotas on certain MPCs, and S. 40 would prohibit the use of dry MPC in domestic cheese production. Dairy processor groups are opposed to these bills. A dairy producer group challenged the Customs Service classification of MPCs, but Customs ruled that current classifications are correct.

Many dairy farmer groups are concerned that imports of milk protein concentrates (MPCs) are displacing domestic dairy ingredients and thus depressing farm milk prices. S.560 and H.R. 1160 would impose tariff rate quotas on certain MPCs, and S. 40 would prohibit the use of dry MPC in domestic cheese production. Dairy processor groups are opposed to these bills. A dairy producer group challenged the Customs Service classification of MPCs, but Customs ruled that current classifications are correct.

Many dairy farmer groups are concerned that imports of milk protein concentrates (MPCs) are displacing domestic dairy ingredients and thus depressing farm milk prices. S.560 and H.R. 1160 would impose tariff rate quotas on certain MPCs, and S. 40 would prohibit the use of dry MPC in domestic cheese production. Dairy processor groups are opposed to these bills. A dairy producer group challenged the Customs Service classification of MPCs, but Customs ruled that current classifications are correct.

Many dairy farmer groups are concerned that imports of milk protein concentrates (MPCs) are displacing domestic dairy ingredients and thus depressing farm milk prices. S.560 and H.R. 1160 would impose tariff rate quotas on certain MPCs, and S. 40 would prohibit the use of dry MPC in domestic cheese production. Dairy processor groups are opposed to these bills. A dairy producer group challenged the Customs Service classification of MPCs, but Customs ruled that current classifications are correct.

Many dairy farmer groups are concerned that imports of milk protein concentrates (MPCs) are displacing domestic dairy ingredients and thus depressing farm milk prices. S.560 and H.R. 1160 would impose tariff rate quotas on certain MPCs, and S. 40 would prohibit the use of dry MPC in domestic cheese production. Dairy processor groups are opposed to these bills. A dairy producer group challenged the Customs Service classification of MPCs, but Customs ruled that current classifications are correct.

A temporary pilot program that allows processors to enter into forward price contracts with individual dairy farmers or their cooperatives for certain uses of milk is scheduled to expire December 31, 2004. A forward price contract allows buyers and sellers of a commodity to negotiate a price for the commodity on a future delivery date and insulates both parties from price volatility. Identical bills (H.R. 3308, S. 2565) pending in Congress would convert the pilot program to a permanent one. The bills are supported by dairy processors, but are opposed by the largest organization of dairy cooperatives, which is concerned that the program might undermine federal minimum pricing requirements

Several dairy issues that were debated during the 108th Congress are expected to continue as issues of interest in the 109th Congress. Separate bills were introduced in the 108th Congress to extend authority for both the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Program and the dairy forward pricing pilot program, and to address dairy producer concerns about the importation of milk protein concentrates.

Several dairy issues that were debated during the 108th Congress are expected to continue as issues of interest in the 109th Congress. Separate bills were introduced in the 108th Congress to extend authority for both the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Program and the dairy forward pricing pilot program, and to address dairy producer concerns about the importation of milk protein concentrates.

Between 1988 and June 1999, thirteen emergency supplemental or farm disaster acts provided a total of $17 billion in emergency funding for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs. The vast majority of this amount has gone directly to farmers, primarily in the form of disaster payments ($12.2 billion) to any farmer suffering a significant crop loss caused by a natural disaster, and "market loss" payments ($3.1 billion) to help grain, cotton, and dairy farmers recover from low farm commodity prices. The remaining $1.7 billion has gone to a wide array of other USDA programs, including those for other forms of farm disaster assistance, farm loans, and overseas food aid. Congress is expected to consider a multi-billion financial assistance package for farmers sometime this year.

From FY1989 through FY2001 (to date), nineteen appropriations or farm disaster acts have provided $38 billion in emergency funding for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs. Nearly $27 billion, or about 70 percent of the total amount, has been provided for FY1999-FY2001 alone. Since FY1989, the vast majority of the funds has been paid directly to farmers, primarily in the form of “market loss payments” (just under $17 billion, all since FY1999) to compensate for low farm commodity prices, and disaster payments($15.6 billion) paid to any producer who experienced a major crop loss caused by a natural disaster. The remaining $5.4 billion has funded a wide array of other USDA programs, including other forms of farm disaster assistance, farm loans, overseas food aid, food and nutrition programs, and rural development assistance.

From FY1989 through FY2005 (to date), 31 appropriations, authorization, or farm disaster acts added approximately $53.2 billion in supplemental funding for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs (excluding the Forest Service, which is funded annually under the Interior appropriations bill). Nearly $41 billion, or 77% of the total amount, was for FY1999-FY2005 alone. Two FY2005 supplementals have been enacted to date, the largest of which was a disaster relief package in response to the 2004 hurricanes and other natural disasters, which included $3.5 billion for agricultural losses (attached to the FY2005 Military Construction Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-324)).

From FY1989 through FY2006, 33 appropriations, authorization, or farm disaster acts added approximately $55.4 billion in supplemental funding for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs. The two most recent supplemental appropriations were provided in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the Gulf of Mexico and in preparation for a possible U.S. outbreak of avian influenza. Some FY1989, the vast majority of the total supplemental funding has been paid directly to farmers, primarily through two mechanisms: "market loss payments" and crop disaster payments. This report includes the total annual funding additions in the 33 acts providing economic and farm disaster assistance through USDA programs since FY1989.

From FY1989 through FY2006, 33 appropriations, authorization, or farm disaster acts added approximately $55.4 billion in supplemental funding for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs. The two most recent supplemental appropriations were provided in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the Gulf of Mexico and in preparation for a possible U.S. outbreak of avian influenza. Some FY1989, the vast majority of the total supplemental funding has been paid directly to farmers, primarily through two mechanisms: "market loss payments" and crop disaster payments. This report includes the total annual funding additions in the 33 acts providing economic and farm disaster assistance through USDA programs since FY1989.

From FY1989 through FY2006, 33 appropriations, authorization, or farm disaster acts added approximately $55.4 billion in supplemental funding for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs. The two most recent supplemental appropriations were provided in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the Gulf of Mexico and in preparation for a possible U.S. outbreak of avian influenza. Some FY1989, the vast majority of the total supplemental funding has been paid directly to farmers, primarily through two mechanisms: "market loss payments" and crop disaster payments. This report includes the total annual funding additions in the 33 acts providing economic and farm disaster assistance through USDA programs since FY1989.

This report provides a table which lists supplemental appropriations for Agriculture. From FY1989 through FY2009, 39 appropriations, authorization, or farm disaster acts added approximately $68.7 billion in supplemental funding for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs (excluding the Forest Service, which is funded annually under the Interior appropriations bill). Approximately $50.2 billion, or just under three-fourths of the total amount, was provided within the last 10 years.

Congress periodically establishes agricultural and food policy in an omnibus farm bill. The 112th Congress faces reauthorization of the current five-year farm bill because many of its provisions expire in 2012. The 2008 farm bill contained 15 titles covering farm commodity support, horticulture, livestock, conservation, nutrition assistance, international food aid, trade, agricultural research, farm credit, rural development, bioenergy, and forestry, among others. Leaders of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees anticipate having a new farm bill completed before the end of this session. If the current farm bill expires without a new authorization or a temporary extension, it automatically would be replaced with permanent statutes for farm commodity support, which are not fully compatible with current national economic objectives, global trading rules, and federal budgetary or regulatory policies.

A number of issues affecting U.S. agriculture are receiving attention during the 109th Congress. Some are related to new initiatives or to unfinished legislation from the 108th Congress; others have been the focus of ongoing congressional oversight. Although the current (2002) farm bill (P.L. 107-171) generally does not expire until 2007, the agriculture committees could begin hearings on a new measure later this year. Meanwhile, the agriculture committees are required by the adopted FY2006 budget resolution to report legislation that reduces spending on mandatory food and agriculture support programs by $3 billion over the next five years. Other issues of importance to agriculture during the 109th Congress include the possible reauthorization of an expiring dairy support program; multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations; concerns about agroterrorism, food safety, and animal and plant diseases (e.g., “mad cow” disease and Asian soybean rust); high energy costs; environmental issues; and a number of agricultural marketing matters. This report will be updated if significant developments ensue.

This report discusses the enhancements to the crop insurance and revenue insurance programs that are expected to be considered by the 106th Congress in order to improve the farm financial safety net and preclude the need for ad hoc legislative assistance.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) offers several permanently authorized programs to help farmers recover financially from a natural disaster, including federal crop insurance, the noninsured assistance program (NAP), and emergency disaster loans. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (otherwise known as the 2008 farm bill) includes authorization and funding for crop disaster programs, livestock assistance programs, and a tree assistance program. The new programs are designed to address the ad hoc nature of disaster assistance provided to producers during the last two decades.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM, Department of the Interior) and the Forest Service (Department of Agriculture) manage approximately 70% of the 650 million acres of land owned by the federal government and many of these lands are classified as rangeland. Both agencies have well-established programs permitting private livestock grazing. The Administration issued new, controversial BLM rangeland management rules effective in August 1995. Supporters contended that the Administration's new rules were a step forward in sound resource management, but some believed they did not go far enough to protect rangelands and riparian areas. Many in the ranching community opposed the new rules, believing that they would ultimately reduce private livestock activity on federal lands, and increase operating costs. This report examines the debate over federal grazing management.

In the past few years, many states have filed complaints against the tobacco industry in state court to recover Medicaid costs paid by the states to treat their citizens for tobacco related illnesses. The states are also attempting to recover other damages, such as punitive damages, against the tobacco industry. For various reasons, the states have hired private attorneys to assist the state Attorneys General in prosecuting these cases. In most cases, the retention of private counsel has included a fee agreement specifying the amount of compensation that these attorneys will receive for their services. These agreements are not uniform among the states, but most tend to provide some form of contingency fee arrangement. Some of these states have developed a sliding scale contingency fee schedule which varies with the amount of time spent on the litigation and whether a trial has begun. This report briefly summarizes the different fee agreements that the states have with private counsel.

This report focuses on the environmental quality of water resources as affected by animal agriculture, specifically animal waste, which can harm water quality through surface runoff, direct discharges, spills, and leaching into soil and groundwater. This report also discusses the contribution of emissions from animal feeding operations (AFO), enterprises where animals are raised in confinement, to air pollution.

This report focuses on the environmental quality of water resources as affected by animal agriculture, specifically animal waste, which can harm water quality through surface runoff, direct discharges, spills, and leaching into soil and groundwater. This report also discusses the contribution of emissions from animal feeding operations (AFO), enterprises where animals are raised in confinement, to air pollution.

This report discusses a plan announced by EPA in January 2005, called the Air Compliance Agreement, that would produce air quality monitoring data on animal agriculture emissions from a small number of farms, while at the same time protecting all participants (including farms where no monitoring takes place) through a “safe harbor” from liability under certain provisions of federal environmental laws.

From an environmental quality standpoint, much of the interest in animal agriculture has focused on impacts on water resources, because animal waste, if not properly managed, can harm water quality through surface runoff, direct discharges, spills, and leaching into soil and groundwater. A more recent issue is the contribution of emissions from animal feeding operations (AFO), enterprises where animals are raised in confinement, to air pollution. AFOs can affect air quality through emissions of gases such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants, and odor. These pollutants and compounds have a number of environmental and human health effects. This report reviews key issues associated with the Air Compliance Agreement.

This report discusses a plan announced by EPA in January 2005, called the Air Compliance Agreement, intended to produce air quality monitoring data on animal agriculture emissions from a small number of farms, while at the same time protecting all participants (including farms where no monitoring takes place) through a "safe harbor" from liability under certain provisions of federal environmental laws.

This report discusses a plan announced by EPA in January 2005, called the Air Compliance Agreement, that would produce air quality monitoring data on animal agriculture emissions from a small number of farms, while at the same time protecting all participants (including farms where no monitoring takes place) through a “safe harbor” from liability under certain provisions of federal environmental laws.

This report discusses a plan announced by EPA in January 2005, called the Air Compliance Agreement, that would produce air quality monitoring data on animal agriculture emissions from a small number of farms, while at the same time protecting all participants (including farms where no monitoring takes place) through a “safe harbor” from liability under certain provisions of federal environmental laws.

From an environmental quality standpoint, much of the interest in animal agriculture has focused on impacts on water resources, because animal waste, if not properly managed, can harm water quality through surface runoff, direct discharges, spills, and leaching into soil and groundwater. A more recent issue is the contribution of emissions from animal feeding operations (AFO), enterprises where animals are raised in confinement, to air pollution. AFOs can affect air quality through emissions of gases such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants, and odor. These pollutants and compounds have a number of environmental and human health effects. This report reviews key issues associated with the Air Compliance Agreement.

This report discusses a plan announced by EPA in January 2005, called the Air Compliance Agreement, that would produce air quality monitoring data on animal agriculture emissions from a small number of farms, while at the same time protecting all participants (including farms where no monitoring takes place) through a “safe harbor” from liability under certain provisions of federal environmental laws.

This report discusses a plan announced by EPA in January 2005, called the Air Compliance Agreement, that would produce air quality monitoring data on animal agriculture emissions from a small number of farms, while at the same time protecting all participants (including farms where no monitoring takes place) through a “safe harbor” from liability under certain provisions of federal environmental laws.

This report discusses a plan announced by EPA in January 2005, called the Air Compliance Agreement, that would produce air quality monitoring data on animal agriculture emissions from a small number of farms, while at the same time protecting all participants (including farms where no monitoring takes place) through a “safe harbor” from liability under certain provisions of federal environmental laws.

This report discusses a plan announced by EPA in January 2005, called the Air Compliance Agreement, intended to produce air quality monitoring data on animal agriculture emissions from a small number of farms, while at the same time protecting all participants (including farms where no monitoring takes place) through a “safe harbor” from liability under certain provisions of federal environmental laws.

This report discusses a plan announced by EPA in January 2005, called the Air Compliance Agreement, that would produce air quality monitoring data on animal agriculture emissions from a small number of farms, while at the same time protecting all participants (including farms where no monitoring takes place) through a “safe harbor” from liability under certain provisions of federal environmental laws.

External Links

Filter: Serial/Series Titles

This dialog allows you to filter your current search.
Each of the Serial/Series Titles listed note their name and the number of records that will be limited down to if you choose that option.
The list can be sorted by name or the count.

Having trouble finding an option within the list of Serial/Series Titles? Start typing and we'll update the list to show only those items that match your needs.
Try limiting with other filters first or use this comprehensive list of titles as an alternative starting point.

Filter: World Regions

This dialog allows you to filter your current search.
Each of the World Regions listed note their name and the number of records that will be limited down to if you choose that option.
The list can be sorted by name or the count.

Filter: Countries

This dialog allows you to filter your current search.
Each of the Countries listed note their name and the number of records that will be limited down to if you choose that option.
The list can be sorted by name or the count.

Having trouble finding an option within the list of Countries? Start typing and we'll update the list to show only those items that match your needs.

Filter: Years

This dialog allows you to filter your current search.
Each of the Years listed note their name and the number of records that will be limited down to if you choose that option.
The list can be sorted by name or the count.

Having trouble finding an option within the list of Years? Start typing and we'll update the list to show only those items that match your needs.

Filter: Months

This dialog allows you to filter your current search.
Each of the Months listed note their name and the number of records that will be limited down to if you choose that option.
The list can be sorted by name or the count.

Filter: Days

This dialog allows you to filter your current search.
Each of the Days listed note their name and the number of records that will be limited down to if you choose that option.
The list can be sorted by name or the count.

Having trouble finding an option within the list of Days? Start typing and we'll update the list to show only those items that match your needs.